Community resilience is used to describe a community's ability to deal with crises or disruptions. The Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure (CCRAM) was developed in order to attain an integrated, multidimensional instrument for the measurement of community resiliency. The tool was developed using an inductive, exploratory, sequential mixed methods design. The objective of the present study was to portray and evaluate the CCRAM's psychometric features. A large community sample (N = 1,052) were assessed by the CCRAM tool, and the data was subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. A Five factor model (21 items) was obtained, explaining 67.67 % of the variance. This scale was later reduced to 10-item brief instrument. Both scales showed good internal consistency coefficients (α = .92 and α = .85 respectively), and acceptable fit indices to the data. Seven additional items correspond to information requested by leaders, forming the CCRAM28. The CCRAM has been shown to be an acceptable practical tool for assessing community resilience. Both internal and external validity have been demonstrated, as all factors obtained in the factor analytical process, were tightly linked to previous literature on community resilience. The CCRAM facilitates the estimation of an overall community resiliency score but furthermore, it detects the strength of five important constructs of community function following disaster: Leadership, Collective Efficacy, Preparedness, Place Attachment and Social Trust. Consequently, the CCRAM can serve as an aid for community leaders to assess, monitor, and focus actions to enhance and restore community resilience for crisis situations.

No abstract

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the constant threat of imminent terrorist activity have brought into the forefront the urgent need to prepare for the consequences of such attacks. Such preparation entails utilization of existing knowledge, identification of crucial gaps in our scientific knowledge, and taking steps to acquire this knowledge. At present, there is little empirical knowledge about interventions following terrorism and absolutely no available empirical knowledge about interventions following bioterrorism. Therefore, this paper reviews knowledge about (1) reactions following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and other places, (2) the practical experiences accumulated in recent years in countries (eg, Israel) that have had to cope with the threat of bioterrorism and the reality of terrorism, and (3) interventions for acute and chronic stress reactions following other types of traumatic events (eg, rape, war, accidents). Our review found several treatments efficacious in treating individuals for acute and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to other traumatic events that will likely be efficacious in treating PTSD related to terrorist attacks. However, there were significant gaps in our knowledge about how to prepare populations and individuals for the possibility of a terrorist attack and what interventions to apply in the immediate aftermath of such an attack. Accordingly, we conclude the paper with several questions designed to guide future research.